MORAL ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 17(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 870/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2026AY 2012-132 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to the lack of a valid approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act. The approval was deemed mechanical and insufficient, vitiating the entire reopening process.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arose from an order by the CIT(A)/NFAC concerning proceedings under sections 143(3) and 147. The appeal was filed with a delay of 84 days, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

Validity of assessment reopening for want of a valid approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH `Eʹ, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara&

For Appellant: Adv. &
For Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023–24/1056617353(1) dated 27.09.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Delay of 84 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the reopening itself for want of a valid approval by the learned prescribed authority u/s. 151 of the Act. The tribunal’s attention is invited to the approval dated 30.03.2019 (page 20 in paper book) wherein the learned prescribed authority had accepted the Assessing Officer’s reopening proposal as “I am satisfied………”. This being the clinching factual position emanating from the record, we hereby quote CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC) that such a mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening; and therefore, we accept the instant legal ground in very terms. This reopening is quashed therefore.

5.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →